Talk:Shooting an Elephant

Symbolism

I'll add symbolism later today (unless someone beats me to it). -- Notheruser 15:15 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)

I finally added symbolism today. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can add to it. -- Notheruser 22:56 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

I removed "It also represents the british and how they do not like elephants. however they do like purple dragons.But why are the British so anti-elephant and pro purple dragon? The answer, they like tea, and since everyone knows that elephants drink alot of tea, and purple dragons don't, the british get upset that the elephants drink all their tea. So they ride their purple dragons and kill elephants....Gafilca Fish."

who is thie gailca fish prick?

-anonymous

Burmese v Burmans

Orwell uses 'Burmans' in the essay, but in fact the people involved were probably from the Mon_(ethnic_group). William Avery 20:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ELEPHANT ORDEAL

The glorious days of the imperial giants have passed, marking the death of the infamous and grandiose era of imperialism. George Orwell's essay, Shooting an Elephant, deals with the evils of imperialism. The unjust shooting of an elephant in Orwell's story is the central focus from which Orwell builds his argument through the two dominant characters, the elephant and its executioner. The British officer, the executioner, acts as a symbol of the imperial country, while the elephant symbolizes the victim of imperialism. Together, the solider and the elephant turns this tragic anecdote into an attack on the institution of imperialism. The importance in the shooting of the elephant lies in how the incident depicts the different aspects of imperialism. In this essay, the elephant and the British officer help prove that imperialism is a double-edge sword. The shooting of the elephant is the incident that reveals that imperialism inflicts damage on both parties in a imperialistic relationship. The British officer, Orwell, displays many aspects of the being the "absurd puppet" under the institution of imperialism.(3) He is the evidence that "every white man's life in the East, was one long struggle not to be laughed at."(3) His experience with the natives conveys how imperialism harms the imperialistic countries as well as their colonies. To give reason to their forceful colonization, the imperialists must strip themselves of their own freedom as they constantly try to "impress the natives" to prove the superiority of the white man.(3) Colonists find the need to become racist against the natives because it is convenient for the colonists to patronize the natives. Racism arises from imperialism not out of hate or prejudice; it is just something that becomes appropriate for the situation. The sort of convenient racism allows people to hate one another for no good reason. The elephant, along with the two thousand Burmese, plays an even more depressing role when compared to the soldier. The elephant plays the "stricken, shrunken, immensely old" countries that have been stormed and conquered by imperialism, while the Burmese play its "helpless" people.(4,1) The once great and powerful elephant is reduced to "senility" by the bullets, just as the countries like India are crushed by the modern technology of the imperial countries. The "great beast," meaning both the elephant and the countries that it represents, becomes "powerless to move and yet powerless to die" under the hands of the white man.(4) The mob of Burmese people, the people of the colonized country, shows that imperialism has taken from them the confidence to defend their country. Instead of organizing to drive out imperialism, these people "spit betel juice" on white women to release their anger, and instead of saving an elephant that a fellow Burmese owned, they have decided to take its meat.(1) The people who are suppressed by imperialism become hateful and selfish in their struggle to survive in their dying country. Together, the officer, the Burmese, and the elephant portray imperialism as an institution that is only capable of harm. The shooting of the elephant is wrong, just as imposing imperialism is wrong. People know that imperialism is destructive, just as Orwell knows he "ought not to shoot" the elephant.(2) Unfortunately, people and Orwell cannot always do what is right. Being a white man, Orwell "mustn't be frightened in front of the natives" because he is part of the imperialistic empire that needs to prove its superiority to justify its colonization of other countries.(3) Imperialism puts pressure on Orwell to live up to the image of the omnipotent white man, and this causes Orwell to shoot the elephant. The question of whether or not the shooting of the elephant is justified is an important question. One can begin to understand Orwell's argument against imperialism by seeing the wrong in Orwell's shooting of the elephant. Orwell shoots the elephant for the sake of holding up the white man's image, not for the reason of safety. The flaws in imperialism begin to emerge when the elephant dies for this selfish reason. Presenting the shooting of the elephant as a torture for both Orwell, who does not want to shot the elephant, and the elephant, who painfully dies, focuses the reader's attention on the suffering that imperialism causes for both parties. If the shooting was justified, Orwell's argument would have been immensely weakened. The symbolic story in the Shooting an Elephant is an attack towards imperialism. Orwell presents the ironic truth that imperialism benefits neither the imperialist nor the countries they colonize. It is perhaps sad to see that men were once willing to buy in to the fraudulent and ephemeral glory that imperialism have offered. Hopefully, men have learned their lessons and no other animal will be sacrificed for men's greed.

Uhhh... why is this on the talk page? Solemnavalanche 04:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Symbolism

I'm not quite sure of what has been written of the symbolism of the essay. I remember analyzing this essay in a Literature class, and if I recall correctly, the basic message was that the British, in becoming the rulers of the Burmese, inadvertenly made themselves the subjects of the Burmese, as they were now required to meet certain expectations that they may not want to fulfill.

This is illustrated in the entire image Orwell casts when he talks about approaching the elephant.

"But at that moment I glanced round at the crowd that had followed me. It was an immense crowd, two thousand at the least and growing every minute. It blocked the road for a long distance on either side. I looked at the sea of yellow faces above the garish clothes-faces all happy and excited over this bit of fun, all certain that the elephant was going to be shot. They were watching me as they would watch a conjurer about to perform a trick. They did not like me, but with the magical rifle in my hands I was momentarily worth watching."

If one thinks of the scene, there stands Orwell, with a rifle, standing in front of a massive crowd of Burmans, all watching him with apparent awe. Clearly one would envision Orwell to be the ruler, but it is NOT so. He has no desire to shoot the elephant, yet the mob pushes him to do it. He's fulfilling the expectations created by those subjected to imperial rule: "He [the white man] wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it."

Anyone else interested in this essay, please articulate your thoughts or, if inspired, implement some of the above into the article. If I find the courage/motivation/time to do so, I will, but anyone else can feel free to do so.

--Sephiriz 02:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the essay was against imperialism, but the wikipedia article depicts it as if he felt himself as just a puppet of the British, and they were the blame, while he describes himself as also being a puppet of the native crowd--it was both the pressure of the rulers and their subjects which brought him to the act. The natives not only had the expectation that he would shoot but would encourage it to take advantage of it. The portrayal is of imperialism as corruptive on all sides. Brianshapiro

'The Narrator' instead of 'Orwell'

We learned in School that we should never mix up the Author and the Narrator, even when a text is written in the 1st person. As this has happened here i am going to fix it. I hope no one minds...

The above is valid advice when you're reading fiction, but not so for autobiography. So the question is: should this piece be treated as fiction? I would say no. Orwell is clearly presenting this as a literal description of something that happened to him. --24.60.168.159 22:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Negative. There is much doubt that it is an autobiographical account. I think wikipedia just might have some sources. Too lazy to do the legwork for you, as im researching a report but if you google " shooting an elephant wiki" you will probably find it. -- praetorian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.85.238.58 (talk) 07:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's unclear. Naively applying what "we learned in school" can be a bit silly, but in this case I think it works. What would really be helpful would be something in the article itself to clarify the status of this essay -- as autobiographical , semi-autobiographical or wholly fictional. In the second two cases, "the narrator" would be appropriate, I think. Solemnavalanche 04:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, strike that last comment. The last paragraph explains the situation well; I just didn't read it till after I wrote the above. Since its status as fiction/biography is unclear, I think playing it safe is best -- leave it as "the narrator." Solemnavalanche 04:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Elephant butchered alive? No.

I just read this story, and it doesn't say the elephant was butchered alive. It says:

I heard later that it took him half an hour to die. Burmans were bringing dahs and baskets even before I left, and I was told they had stripped his body almost to the bones by the afternoon.

Since the action of the story begins "early one morning," the animal may or may not have been "butchered alive." However, the text gives no clear indication that it was, and given the extreme nature of the claim, I'm removing it. Solemnavalanche 04:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Strange sentence

The phrase "acting just not to be looking a fool to save face" is incomprehensible, but is clearly trying to express something about the narrator's feelings, so I don't want to just remove it. Can someone who knows the story better than me try to fix that? Rissa (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Assessing as a Literature

I added this article to WP:LIT rather than WP:NOVEL for it being an essay instead of a novel. I feel it is well written, however it is totally lacking in references. It would be nice if the article can be expanded on what was Orwell's style of writing at this stage and how was it received. Who was its target? Where was it published? Such questions could be answered to establish a rounded article on the essay. Jappalang (talk) 08:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Revise the synopsis

That isn't a synopsis, it's a plot summary. A synopsis must only contain what the story is about, not the events.